At least one thousand ladies were in the audience, among whom Mrs. LINCOLN was an attractive and conspicuous personage. The wives and daughters of many of New York's wealthiest and worthiest citizens, by their presence and enthusiasm evinced the deep interest they felt in the occasion, the speaker, and the theme discussed.

DAVID DUDLEY FIELD, Esq., who had been selected by the Committee as Chairman of the meeting, introduced Mr. SUMNER to the audience in the following words :—

REMARKS OF MR. FIELD.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:-At no former period in the history of the country, has the condition of its foreign relations been so important and so critical as it is at this moment. In what agony of mortal struggle this nation has passed the last two years, we all know. A rebellion of unparalleled extent, of indescribable enormity, without any justifiable cause, without even a decent pretext, stimulated by the bad passions which a barbarous institution had originated, and encouraged by expected and promised aid from false men among ourselves, has filled the land with desolation and mourning. During this struggle it has been our misfortune to encounter the evil disposition of the two nations of Western Europe, with which we are most closely associated by ties of blood, common history, and mutual commerce. Perhaps I ought to have said, the evil disposition of the Governments rather than of the Nations, for in France the people have no voice, and we know only the imperial will and policy, while in England the masses have no powers, the House of Commons being elected by a fraction of the people, and the aristocratic classeș being against us from dislike to the freedom of our institutions, and the mercantile classes from the most sordid motives of private gain. To what extent this evil disposition has been carried, what causes have stimulated it, in what acts it has manifested itself, and what consequences may be expected to follow from it in future, will be explained by the distinguished orator who is to address you this evening. His position, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, has given him an acquaintance with the subject, equal, if not superior, to that of any other person in the country. He needs no introduction from me. His name is an introduction and a passport in any free community between the Atlantic and the Pacific Seas; therefore, without saying more, I will give way for CHARLES SUMNER, of Massachusetts.

Amid the most marked demonstrations of satisfaction, expressed frequently by long-continued applause and hearty cheers, Mr. SUMNER proceeded in the delivery of his discourse. The meeting adjourned about an hour before midnight.

It may be proper to add, as an evidence of the importance attached to Mr. SUMNER'S treatment of the subject, that three New York newspapers, and two in Boston, printed the entire speech on the day following its delivery.

Copies of the speech will be mailed to those who may request them. Address "Cor. Sec'y of Young Men's Republican Union, Box 1219 P. O. New York City."

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,-From the beginning of the war in which we are now engaged, the public interest has alternated anxiously between the current of events at home and the more distant current abroad. Foreign Relations have been hardly less absorbing than Domestic Relations. At times the latter have seemed to wait upon the former, and a packet from Europe has been like a messenger from the seat of war. Rumors of Foreign Intervention are constant, now in the form of Mediation, and now in the form of Recognition; and more than once the country has been summoned to confront the idea of England, and of France too, in open combination with Rebel Slave-mongers battling, in the name of Slavery, to build an infamous Power on the destruction of this Republic.

It may be well for us to turn aside from battle and siege here at home from the blazing lines of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and Charleston-to glance for a moment at the perils from abroad; of course I mean from England and France, for these are the only Foreign Powers that thus far have been moved to intermeddle on the side of Slavery. The subject to which I now invite attention may not have the attraction of waving standards or victorious marches, but, more than any conflict of arms, it concerns the Civilization of the age. If Foreign Powers can justly interfere against Human Freedom, this Republic will not be the only sufferer.

There is always a natural order in unfolding a subject, and I shall try to pursue it on this occasion, under the following heads; First-The perils to our country from Foreign Powers, especially as foreshadowed in the unexpected and persistent conduct of England and France since the outbreak of the war.

Secondly-The nature of Foreign Intervention by Mediation, with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic instances showing especially how England, by her conspicuous, wide-spread and most determined Intervention to promote the extinction of African Slavery, is irrevocably committed against any act or policy that can encourage this criminal pretension.

Thirdly-The nature of Foreign Intervention by Recognition, with the principles applicable thereto, as illustrated by historic

instances showing that by the practice of nations, and especially by the declared sentiments of British Statesmen, there can be no Foreign Recognition of an insurgent Power where the contest for Independence is still pending.

Fourthly-The moral impossibility of Foreign Recognition, even if the pretended Power be de facto Independent, where it is composed of Rebel Slave-mongers seeking to found a new Power with Slavery for its declared "corner-stone." Pardon the truthful plainness of the terms which I employ. I am to speak not merely of Slave-holders; but of people to whom Slavery is a passion and a business-therefore Slave-mongers; now in Rebellion for the sake of Slavery-therefore Rebel Slave-mongers.

Fifthly-The absurdity and wrong of conceding Ocean Belligerency to a pretended Power, which, in the first place, is without a Prize Court-so that it cannot be an Ocean Belligerent in factand which, in the second place, even if Ocean Belligerent in fact, is of such an odious character, that its Recognition is a moral impossibility.

From this review, touching upon the present and the past; leaning upon history and upon law; enlightened always by principles which are an unerring guide, our conclusion will be easy.

[I.]

PERILS FROM FOREIGN POWERS.

The perils to our country, as foreshadowed in the action of Foreign Powers since the outbreak of the war, first invite our attention.

There is something in the tendencies of nations, which must not be neglected. Like individuals, nations influence each other; like the heavenly bodies, they may be disturbed by each other in their appointed orbits. This is apparent even in peace; but it becomes more apparent in the convulsions of war, sometimes from the withdrawal of customary forces and sometimes from their increased momentum. It is the nature of war to enlarge as it continues. Beginning between two nations, it gradually widens its circle, sucking other nations into its fiery maelstrom. Such is human history. Nor is it different, if the war be for Independence. Foreign Powers may for a while keep out of the conflict; but the examples of history show how difficult this has been

The Seven United Provinces of Holland, under that illustrious character, William of Orange, the predecessor and exemplar of our Washington, rose against the dominion of Spain, upheld by the bigotry of Philip II., and the barbarity of his representative, Alva; but the conflict, though at first limited to the two parties, was not slow to engage Queen Elizabeth, who lent to this war of Independence the name of her favorite Leicester and the undying

heroism of Sidney, while Spain retorted by the Armada. The United Provinces of Holland, in their struggle for Independence, were the prototype of the United States of America, which I need not remind you, drew into their contest the arms of France, Spain, and Holland. In the rising of the Spanish Colonies which followed, there was less interposition of other nations, doubtless from the distant and outlying position of these Colonies, although they were not beyond the ambitious reach of the Holy Alliance, whose purposes with regard to them were so far thwarted by Mr. Canning, backed by the declaration of Mr. Munroe-known as the Munroe doctrine—that the British Statesman felt authorized to boast that he had called a New World into existence to redress the balance of the Old. Then came the struggle for Greek Independence, which, after a conflict of several years, darkened by massacre, but relieved by an exalted self-sacrifice, shining with names like Byron and Bozzaris, that cannot die, at length challenged the powerful interposition of England, France and Russia. The Independence of Greece was hardly acknowledged, when Belgium, renouncing the rule of the Netherlands, claimed hers also, and here again the Great Powers of Europe were drawn into the contest. Then came the effort of Hungary, inspired by Kossuth, which, when about to prevail, aroused the armies of Russia. There was also the contemporaneous effort of the Roman Republic, under Mazzini, which when about to prevail, aroused the bayonets of France. And lastly we have only recently witnessed the resurrection of Italy, inspired by Garibaldi, and directed by Cavour; but it was not accomplished until Louis Napoleon, with his well-trained legions, carried the imperial eagles into the battle.

Such are famous instances, which are now so many warnings. Ponder them and you will see the tendency, the temptation, the irresistible fascination, or the commanding exigency under which, in times past, Foreign Nations have been led to take part in conflicts for Independence. I do not dwell now on the character of these various interventions, although they have been mostly in the interest of Human Freedom. It is only as examples to put us on our guard that I now adduce them. The footprints all seem to lead one way.

But even our war is not without its warnings. If thus far in its progress other nations have not intervened, they have not succeeded in keeping entirely aloof. The foreign trumpet has not sounded yet; but more than once the cry has come that we should soon hear it, while incidents have too often occurred, exhibiting an abnormal watchfulness of our affairs and an uncontrollable passion or purpose to intermeddle in them, with signs of unfriendly feeling. Of course, this is applicable especially, if not exclusively, to England and France.

Perils from England.

(1.) There is one act of the British Cabinet which stands foremost as an omen of peril-foremost in time-foremost also in the magnitude of its consequences. Though plausible in form, it is none the less injurious or unjustifiable. Of course, I refer to that inconsiderate Proclamation in the name of the Queen, as early as May, 1861, which, after raising Rebel Slave-mongers to an equality with the National Government in Belligerent Rights, solemnly declares "neutrality" between the two equal parties;-as if the declaration of equality was not an insult to the National Government, and the declaration of neutrality was not a moral absurdity, offensive to reason and all those precedents which make the glory of the British name. Even if the Proclamation could be otherwise than improper at any time in such a Rebellion, it was worse than a blunder at that early date. The apparent relations between the two Powers were more than friendly. Only a few months before, the youthful heir to the British throne had been welcomed every where throughout the United States -except in Richmond-as in the land of kinsmen. And yet -immediately after the tidings of the rebel assault on Fort Sumter-before the National Government had begun to put forth its strength-and even without waiting for the arrival of our newly-appointed Minister, who was known to be at Liverpool on his way to London, the Proclamation was suddenly launched. I doubt if any well-informed person, who has read Mr. Dallas's despatch of 2d May, 1861, recounting a conversation with the British Minister, will undertake to vindicate it in point of time. Clearly the alacrity of this concession was unhappy, for it bore an air of defiance or at least of heartlessness towards an ally of kindred blood engaged in the maintenance of its traditional power against an infamous pretension. But it was more unhappy still, that the good genius of England did not save this historic nation, linked with so many triumphs of freedom, from a fatal step, which, under the guise of "neutrality," was a betrayal of civilization itself.

It is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of this precipitate, unfriendly and immoral concession, which has been and still is an overflowing fountain of mischief and bloodshed-hac fonte derivata clades;-first, in what it vouchsafes to Rebel Slavemongers on sea and in British ports, and secondly, in the impediments which it takes from British subjects ready to make money out of Slavery ;-all of which has been declared by undoubted British authority. Lord Chelmsford-of professional renown as Sir Frederick Thesiger-now an Ex-Chancellor-used these words recently in the House of Lords; "If the Southern Confederacy had not been recognized as a belligerent Power, he agreed with his noble and learned friend [Lord Brougham] that, under these circumstances, if any Englishman were to fit out a privateer for